Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ASSUMPTION:
Core assumption of structural contingency theory is that low uncertainty tasks are most
effectively performed by centralized hierarchy since this is simple, quick and allows
close coordination cheaply.
FOCUS:
Structural contingency theory focuses on only certain couplings of contingency and
structural factors i.e: size and bureaucracy or strategy and structure. The theory claims
that there cannot be any single organizational structure that can assure organizational
effectiveness. Structure depends on certain characteristics of the organizations called
“contingency factor” such as strategy, size, task uncertainty and technology. These
factors are influenced by elements such as industry, govt, competitors, society which are
located outside organizations according to this theory, organization can only be effective
if they can fit their structure to the contingency factors and thus to the environment.
PREVIOUS THEORIES:
Before the contingency theory, organization studies were dominated by classical
management school which had searched for an organizational structure that could be
suitable and effective for all sort of organizations. However in 1930’s on, human
relations school started to challenge this classical understanding and hence organization
studies began to shift towards the human aspect of organization.
Finally by combining and adopting superior parts of these two approaches, contingency
theory was developed in the late 1950’s.
DEBATE:
CRITICISM:
Although the theory seems very stronger in 1960’s, new developments and studies in all
disciplines started to challenge structural contingency theory and its assumptions. These
criticisms focused on three problematic areas:
1) structure is assumed to be adjusting only to the material factors such as size and
technology.
2) Decision makers, mostly top managers are not taken into account.
3) There are some doubts whether the result will be valid in different countries at
different times.
As a result of such criticism new approaches have been emerged for the explanation of
organizational structure.